I also find portsnap slower than either
csup or svn.
That surprises me. Once the initial download and extract is done, I find
portsnap fetch update to be miles faster than csup. However, each to
his own, I suppose.
+1
___
mer...@stonehenge.com schreef op :
Stas == Stas Verberkt lego...@legolasweb.nl writes:
Stas On a side note, using Git does mean that everyone has to
download a complete
Stas repository. This makes using a csup-like architecture quite
Stas heavy-weight.
The entire history of the Linux kernel
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:41 AM, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, pete wright wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote:
csup updates just the files that have changed without all the overhead.
svn
export can get a copy of all
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Stas Verberkt lego...@legolasweb.nl wrote:
Jerry schreef op :
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:00:08 -0700
Michael Sierchio articulated:
We are really behind the curve here. Git assumes (correctly) that
disk space is inexpensive, much cheaper per byte than network
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:26:45 -0600, Warren Block wrote:
For ports, it's probably worth saving the distfile directory along with
local diffs. Move it back into place after the svn checkout of the
ports tree.
PMFJI. Newbie here: What's wrong with using SVN for src, and portsnap for
ports?
Walter Hurry writes:
PMFJI. Newbie here: What's wrong with using SVN for src, and
portsnap for ports?
_Wrong_? Nothing.
But a lot of people like the idea of using the same tool to
solve nearly identical problems.
Your experience may diverga.
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Walter Hurry wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:26:45 -0600, Warren Block wrote:
For ports, it's probably worth saving the distfile directory along with
local diffs. Move it back into place after the svn checkout of the
ports tree.
PMFJI. Newbie here: What's wrong with
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Walter Hurry walterhu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:26:45 -0600, Warren Block wrote:
For ports, it's probably worth saving the distfile directory along with
local diffs. Move it back into place after the svn checkout of the
ports tree.
PMFJI.
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:18:02 -0600, Warren Block wrote:
I also find portsnap slower than either
csup or svn.
That surprises me. Once the initial download and extract is done, I find
portsnap fetch update to be miles faster than csup. However, each to
his own, I suppose.
Warren Block schreef op :
The difference is that a local svn checkout has all the commit
history. A comparison recently showed 700-some megabytes more space
used by the svn checkout.
Although I believe the checkouts are bigger, I do not think they have
all the commit history. This is where SVN
We are really behind the curve here. Git assumes (correctly) that
disk space is inexpensive, much cheaper per byte than network
bandwidth. By the time we adopt SVN completely, every serious project
I know of will have moved from subversion to git. ;-)
- M
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Stas
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:00:08 -0700
Michael Sierchio articulated:
We are really behind the curve here. Git assumes (correctly) that
disk space is inexpensive, much cheaper per byte than network
bandwidth. By the time we adopt SVN completely, every serious project
I know of will have moved
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 07:00:08 -0500, Michael Sierchio ku...@tenebras.com
wrote:
We are really behind the curve here. Git assumes (correctly) that
disk space is inexpensive, much cheaper per byte than network
bandwidth. By the time we adopt SVN completely, every serious project
I know of will
Jerry schreef op :
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:00:08 -0700
Michael Sierchio articulated:
We are really behind the curve here. Git assumes (correctly) that
disk space is inexpensive, much cheaper per byte than network
bandwidth. By the time we adopt SVN completely, every serious
project
I know
On 09/18/12 13:00, Michael Sierchio wrote:
We are really behind the curve here. Git assumes (correctly) that
disk space is inexpensive, much cheaper per byte than network
bandwidth. By the time we adopt SVN completely, every serious project
I know of will have moved from subversion to git. ;-)
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Stas Verberkt wrote:
Warren Block schreef op :
The difference is that a local svn checkout has all the commit
history. A comparison recently showed 700-some megabytes more space
used by the svn checkout.
Although I believe the checkouts are bigger, I do not think they
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, pete wright wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote:
csup updates just the files that have changed without all the overhead. svn
export can get a copy of all the current files, but it copies all of them
every time, not just the
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:44:46 +0200
Stas Verberkt articulated:
We should not be forgetting that Git and Subversion represent two
different
workflows. The latter stands for a centralistic development cycle,
and the
former for a distributed manner. Thus, this type of choice does not
really
Warren Block writes:
You're right. 'svn blame', for instance, retrieves the history
from the repository. So it's not as bad as it could be... but
that 700M number was from a ports tree checkout. My source
checkout shows 869M in .svn. That's a pretty large chunk of
bandwidth for
Stas == Stas Verberkt lego...@legolasweb.nl writes:
Stas On a side note, using Git does mean that everyone has to download a
complete
Stas repository. This makes using a csup-like architecture quite
Stas heavy-weight.
The entire history of the Linux kernel since switching to git 5 years
ago is
On 18-09-2012 14:00, Michael Sierchio wrote:
We are really behind the curve here. Git assumes (correctly) that
disk space is inexpensive, much cheaper per byte than network
bandwidth. By the time we adopt SVN completely, every serious project
I know of will have moved from subversion to git.
Now that we're switching to svn, is there a utility analogous to csup for
fetching source? Is that utility available for 8.3? (I'm assuming
subversion will become part of base in 9.x.)
--
Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions
are my own and not
Hi,
Reference:
From: Paul Schmehl pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com
Reply-to: Paul Schmehl pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:45:23 -0500
Message-id: D97788AE24B7FFB0C79AA6FB@localhost
Paul Schmehl wrote:
Now that we're switching to svn, is there a utility
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:45:23 -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
Now that we're switching to svn, is there a utility analogous to csup
for fetching source? Is that utility available for 8.3? (I'm assuming
subversion will become part of base in 9.x.)
9.1-RC1 here. Subversion is still in ports at the
--On September 17, 2012 11:23:09 PM + Walter Hurry
walterhu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:45:23 -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
Now that we're switching to svn, is there a utility analogous to csup
for fetching source? Is that utility available for 8.3? (I'm assuming
subversion
Paul Schmehl writes:
Does csup use subversion now? Or do we need to use something
else to fetch source?
As I understand it, for the average user c(vs)up and subversion
serve the same function using different methods (both in terms of
identifying what files need to be fetched and
--On September 17, 2012 8:42:33 PM -0400 Robert Huff roberth...@rcn.com
wrote:
Paul Schmehl writes:
Does csup use subversion now? Or do we need to use something
else to fetch source?
As I understand it, for the average user c(vs)up and subversion
serve the same function using
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Robert Huff wrote:
Paul Schmehl writes:
Does csup use subversion now? Or do we need to use something
else to fetch source?
As I understand it, for the average user c(vs)up and subversion
serve the same function using different methods (both in terms of
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Paul Schmehl wrote:
--On September 17, 2012 8:42:33 PM -0400 Robert Huff roberth...@rcn.com
wrote:
Paul Schmehl writes:
Does csup use subversion now? Or do we need to use something
else to fetch source?
As I understand it, for the average user c(vs)up and
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Warren Block wbl...@wonkity.com wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Robert Huff wrote:
Paul Schmehl writes:
Does csup use subversion now? Or do we need to use something
else to fetch source?
As I understand it, for the average user c(vs)up and
30 matches
Mail list logo
